RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002)
Volume 11 | Number 3
Article 12
June 2000
Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds.,
Communicating Uncertainty
Daniel D. Howard
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholars.unh.edu/risk
Part of the Communication Commons
Repository Citation
Daniel D. Howard, Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty, 11 RISK 263 (2000).
This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the University of New Hampshire – School of Law at University of New Hampshire
Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002) by an authorized editor of University of
New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Review of: Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds., Communicating Uncertainty
Erratum
The citation for this review is 11 RISK 255 (2000) in most commercial databases.
This book review is available in RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1990-2002): http://scholars.unh.edu/risk/vol11/iss3/12
Book Reviews 263
Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and
Controversial Science (Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody &
Carol L. Rogers, eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1999). Preface,
introduction. ISBN 0-8058-2728-5 [261 pp. $32.50. Paperback, 10
Industrial Avenue, Mahwah, NJ 07430-2262].
Traditionally, scientific inquiry has focused on the positive resiilts of
research with the ultimate goal of revealing proven or provable truth
about our universe. Communicating Uncertainty provides a meaningful
counterpoint to this traditional analysis by examining scientific pursuits
from the perspective of the gaps remaining in our collective knowledge
after a given scientific inquiry, and how we manage and convey that
information. Through a collection of independently authored chapters,
the book examines the manner in which these gaps in scientific
knowledge define and explain the positive output of science.
Although the book is comprised of individual chapters penned by
various authors, the chapters are more internally consistent than is
frequently the case in collections of individual essays. The editors
establish their themes in the introduction, including some useful
definitions, and the chapters following tend to adhere closely to those
themes. For example, the primary recurring theme in the book centers
on the three essential classes of participants in the scientific discourse:
scientists, journalists, and the public. This theme recurs throughout the
subjects discussed within each chapter. Each of the three major sections
of the book concludes with a panel discussion of the topics introduced
by the previous chapters; here again the "three participant" theme
resounds, as the members of the panels are the respective participants in
the scientific discourse (scientists, journalists, the public).
Within this framework of competing interests, the various authors
make some illuminating points about how the different classes use
uncertainty to their respective advantages. Scientists use uncertainty to
both legitimatize their conclusions, by avoiding the appearance of
overzealousness, and to suggest the need for continuing research, thus
providing the scientists with job security. 1 Journalists tend to downplay
1
See Communicating Uncertainty. Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science 1213 (Sharon M. Friedman et al. eds. 1999).
11 Risk. Health, Safety & Environment 263 [Summer 2000]
uncertainty in their quest for supportable facts, 2 though they
occasionally suggest more uncertainty than would the scientists. 3 Thus,
the public is left with the need to discern usable truth from the various
claims stated, and must actively negotiate these conflicting claims so as
to make sense of the uncertainly presented. 4 The bulk of the book
discusses the interrelationships among these groups.
The authors effectively use examples to illustrate their claims. In
addition to examples based on "hard" scientific inquiry into
mainstream topics such as dioxin and acid rain, the authors use simple
examples of statistical analysis to illustrate the importance of accurate
representations of error and uncertainty. One such example is a
journalistic investigation into parents' suspicions that their children are
being disproportionately burdened (literally) by their school's
homework requirements, resulting in excessively heavy backpacks and
the consequent danger of back injuries. 5 Although the journalists'
results support the parents' claims, the authors reveal errors in the
"scientific" methods used: backpacks were not randomly sampled but
were subjectively chosen by the reporters, leaving open the possibility of
drastically skewed results. This simple example illustrates how data
manipulation can alter the perceived uncertainty of the resulting
conclusions.
Consistent with the overlying theme of three classes of participants
in the scientific discourse, the panel discussions included at the end of
each major section of the book include representatives of the scientific
community, journalism, and the public. However, this representative
participation is somewhat artificial because of the difficulty in defining
"the public." As a result, the "public" representatives tend to be
scientists and journalists playing the role of public advocate. As long as
the reader bears in mind that the views expressed as representing the
public are to some extent artificially formulated, she will not be misled
by those views. The reader, a member of "the public," is always free to
interpret the discussions from her personal perspective.
2
3
4
5
See id. at 24-27.
See id. at 28-30.
See id. at 55.
See id,at 237-39.
Book Reviews 265
The greatest shortcoming of Communicating Uncertainty is its lack
of a unifying conclusion. The editors intended to provide a broadreaching analysis of this narrowly focused aspect of scientific discourse,
and they did so effectively by bringing in diverse voices to present
various analyses. However, without a unifying conclusion, the reader
must retrace her steps through the various chapters and the
introductory material to draw her conclusions. Despite this
shortcoming, the book provides an effective introduction to the less
frequently examined aspects of scientific discourse to help shape our
available knowledge.
Daniel D. Howardt
t
Mr. Howard is a graduate of Franklin Pierce Law Center (J.D. 2000). He also holds a B.S.
(Hospitality Administration) from Florida State University and a B.A. (English) from North
Carolina State University.
11 Risk. Health, Safety & Enviromnent 263 [Summer 2000]